CCPR/C/116/D/2411/2014 of the trial but did not mention that those particular allegations had been left out by the Krasnodar Territorial Court. Thus, the State party concludes that the author’s complaint does not reveal a violation by the national courts of his rights under the Covenant. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In a letter dated 11 November 2014, the author reiterated his original allegations and specified that the remedy he was seeking before the Committee was for the State party to repeal his sentence under articles 33 (3) and 205 (3) and reduce his sentence from 21 to 10 years. 5.2 On 24 November 2014, he added that the correspondence from the Committee had been delivered to him by the prison authorities in a damaged envelope and that he had made a note about it in the incoming correspondence registry. When he returned to his cell, he found a SIM card that was not his among his belongings. After that, he was accused of having violated the prison regime, was placed in solitary confinement cell for three days and transferred from a lighter to a stricter regime of detention afterwards. He alleges that those sanctions were carried out by the prison authorities in retaliation for his report on the open letter. 5.3 On 20 August 2015, the author informed the Committee that he had undergone surgery on one eye and that an operation on the other eye was needed, but that such operations could not be performed in prison hospitals. Because of his deteriorating health, he asked the Committee to speed up consideration of his complaint. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the author filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in 2008. It notes that, when acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party made a declaration 3 in which it clarified that “the Committee shall not consider any communications unless it has been ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement”. The Committee observes that the European Court found the author’s complaint inadmissible in April 2010. Since the matter is not currently being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the Committee is not precluded from considering the author’s complaint under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that the author has never raised a claim of ill-treatment under article 7 of the Covenant before the national courts. It notes the author’s claims that he complained repeatedly to the territorial prosecutor’s office 3 6 The declaration reads: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in respect of situations or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the USSR. The Soviet Union also proceeds from the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communications unless it has been ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the individual in question has exhausted all available domestic remedies.”